One Term President - Page 4 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-18-2003, 01:23 AM   #46
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,598
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
our beloved Pres
i wouldn't call him that.
__________________

__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 01:28 AM   #47
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 06:29 AM
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 02:16 AM   #48
Paper Gods
Forum Administrator
 
KhanadaRhodes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: a vampire in the limousine
Posts: 60,598
Local Time: 07:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
sorry i happen to agree with timoroni.

and gabrielvox, and pub crawler, and melon, and dreadsox, and beefeater, and deep...
__________________
KhanadaRhodes is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 02:43 AM   #49
War Child
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Wallyworld
Posts: 571
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Re: one hairy bush

Quote:
Originally posted by timoroni
but thank god he 'stole' gov. ridge from pennsylvania so we could turn this place around.
Of course, being from SE Pennsylvania, you know Rendell isn't cut out to do this.
__________________
Clark W. Griswold, Jr is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 03:03 PM   #50
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by STING2
Dreadsox,

" I am sorry, but when I was in the military, the UN was not in charge of me. My oath was to the COnstitution of the UNited States not the UN. Also, the cease fire is a UN agreement isn't it? It seems wrong that we should presume to enforce papers that the UN does not wish to."

Well then you seem to be saying that the UN is irrelevant which is puzzling since you say that if the UN approves it then you would go along with it period. My point is that the UN already approved the use of force in resolution 687. It reafirmed that resolution in 1441 last fall. Congress has already approved the Presidents use of force and there is not going to be another vote in Congress.
Sting,

Obviously it is debatable that 687 and 1441 gives the US to attack Iraq without further approval. Especially since the United States is looking at introducing another resolution for the authorization of force. I guess it is not as clear cut, is it? If it were that clear cut, then action would have been taken already. The UN has NOT yet found Iraq in violation to my knowledge. Unless you are privy to information I am not aware of.


So here I go again, trying to explain my "opinion":

#1 IT is a UN Cease Fire and they are UN Resolutions
#2 Iraq has not been found in violation of the UN Resolutions by the UN..
#3 I do not agree that the use of force resolution is enough to invade another country without a clear case of immediate danger without the UN.
#4 If the UN does not find Iraq in violation then to satisify my concerns I want a formal Declaration of War.


Do I think there will be another vote? No. Someone asked me what I think. Can we not express opinions, without constantly having to get the resolution argument thrown into EVERY thread? This thread was supposed to be about presidential politics already! Maybe looking at how others would handle the situation.

As a prior servicemember who took an OATH to the Constitution, I find it to be a bunch of CRAP that our servicemembers are being sent to enforce UNITED NATIONS resolutions without UNTIED NATIONS support. Declare War if we must, that is what the constitution demands of our Representatives and Senators. Without it we have a PRESIDENT, not doing his job, and REPRESENTATIVES, not doing theirs. Going to WAR was not supposed to be easy. I woudl like a case to be made with real evidence to someone who I have elected to represent me. If someone were sending me to fight in a WAR, I would like to know that the case was made and made forcefully with EVIDENCE.


Now what is puzzling to me, is why you think it is not up to the United Nations to enforce their cease fire agreements and resolutions. Did I miss a resolution that states that the United States job in the world is to enforce UN Cease Fire Agreements and Resolutions?
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 03:34 PM   #51
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Dreadsox,

Well if the whole United Nations resolutions thing is not relevant, why bring up UN support as a reason to go to war in the first place?

Evidence? Lets see, Iraq has failed to prove what happened to 30,000 munitions, thousands of tons of Anthrax, thousands of tons of VX Nerve Gas. The burden of proof has always been on Saddam, not the international community. Even Saddam, legally agrees with that because he signed the 1991 Ceacefire agreement.

Will probably see if Saddam did or did not have banned weapons in a few months or maybe a few weeks.

There will never be another declaration of war. The only reason to have declaration of war is to have congress approve military action by the commander in chief. This has already happened on multiple occasions. But in the Nuclear Age, even that is often impossible.

How many wars have been declared by the way? Abraham Lincoln fought an undeclared war against the South. I'm not sure if the Revolutionary War was a declared war. So it looks like:

War of 1812
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
World War I
World war II

I do believe that the President must have the consent of Congress and the American people to take the nation to war. In this case, he indeed has this approval. The US congress overwhelmingly backed the use of force back in October. The November congressional elections were essentially an endorsement of Bush's foreign Policy. The Latest CNN/TIME/GALLOP poll shows that 57% of US citizens support the president in leading a coalition of the willing to disarm Iraq even without UN support. The congressional approval given back in October was essentially a declaration of war on Iraq. The only difference is the exact wording.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 04:23 PM   #52
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:29 AM
I am close to surrendering.

Sting...do not put words into my mouth.

No where in any thread have I ever said that the UN was irrelevant.

I do sense a total lack of interest in my "OPINION". I also find your "nuclear age" argument insulting to all of us. If the use of force was authorized last OCTOBER this clearly is not a case where the president needs emergency authority to act now is it? Your list of wars is impressive. I happen to disagree with your logic. All the more reason the Constitution should be followed. The polls are impressive as well. Where in the Constitution do they rank? The one thing we agree on is there is no Declaration of War.

My opinion on this situation no war unless:

#1 UN finds Iraq in violation and calls upon the use of force. I do believe that if this happens I would be satisfied that Octobers vote was good enough for me.

or

#2 Congress Declares war after a case is made by the President.


Simple as that.

Still waiting for your proof that the US has the authority under the UN to be the:

Judge
Jury
and Executioner

In the case of UN resolutions.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 05:23 PM   #53
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:29 PM
United Nations Security Council Resolutions 678:

"Authorizes member states to use all necessary means to uphold and implement Security council resolution 660 and all subsequent relevant resolutions and to restore international peace and security in the area"

I think that should answer the question. But if not, what is your interpretation of the above resolution which was passed in November 1990 and applies to all 17 resolutions passed under Chapter VII rules of the United Nations that Iraq is currently in violation of? What was the purpose and point of the 1991 Gulf War Ceacefire and the conditions that were clearly laid out in it?
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 05:40 PM   #54
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Sting....

With a due respect....

Thank you for derailing a thread that was not intended to debate the UN resolutions.

Thank you for allowing others to express their opinions without arguing about UN resolutions.

I suppose all arguments lead to UN Resolutions.

IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE.


It is up to out president to make a clear case for INVASION if we are not working through the UN.

PEACE
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 06:19 PM   #55
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Dreadsox,

"IT IS UP TO THE UN TO DECIDE IF THE RESOLUTION IS IN VIOLATION AND WHAT STEPS TO TAKE."

If you look at resolution 678, you'll see that has already been done.

I'm sorry about the thread, but I was not the first person to bring the UN into this thread. I will not mention anything having to do with the United Nations again in this thread.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-18-2003, 06:36 PM   #56
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:29 PM
As for the original topic of this thread, I think Bush will be a one term president if two things happen.

#1 If the economy remains muddled through all of 2003 as it was through all of 2002. Bush has until January 2004 to get some type of turn around in the economy or anyone the Democrats put up against him for the 2004 election will probably beat him.

#2 This is kind of ironic. The more successful Bush is in Foreign Policy, Iraq, combating terrorism, the less of an issue these things will be in the 2004 election, and the more focus there will be on #1 above.

So, over the next year, great success in foreign policy combined with a continued muddled or worse economy will equal Bush being a one term President. Not that I would agree with the public's decision, but thats how I think they will vote if those two things happen.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 07:55 PM   #57
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 01:29 PM
Every time I turn on the news another Democrat is entering the election competition. I don't really know anything about these guys right now; chances are I'm going to know too damn much by the time the primary season comes up. Does anyone else think our campaigns last too long, no matter how you vote? I happen to think that this is why some people don't vote. That's bad, again, no matter how you vote you really should vote!
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 11:27 PM   #58
Rock n' Roll Doggie
FOB
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 8,876
Local Time: 01:29 PM
I agree, are political campaigns last two damn long and require to much money. I'd like it if we had a very short campaign season. Make the two conventions in the summer the start of the compaign with the the election in November. I think anouncement and debate of the candidates, selection of who will lead each party in the Presidential election, and final the election itself, should be done in under 4 months. I don't know specifically how to construct such a system, but I think its crazy for people to start compaigning for an election that is a year or two away.
__________________
STING2 is offline  
Old 02-19-2003, 11:55 PM   #59
Ghost of Love
 
gvox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: In The Ballroom of The Crystal Lights
Posts: 19,834
Local Time: 08:29 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
derailing a thread that was not intended to debate the UN resolutions.

__________________
ACROBAT - U2 Tribute on Facebook


http://home.cogeco.ca/~october/images/sheeep.jpg

Don't push this button:
 
I'm serious, don't!

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyagu_Anaykus View Post
Interference is my Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gvox View Post
Consequently, Earth is an experimental disaster.
 

If you keep going, you have only your self to blame

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by The Best Interferencer On The Damn Planet View Post
Edge:
too sexy for his amp
too sexy for his cap
too sexy for that god-damned headset
I told you








gvox is offline  
Old 02-21-2003, 08:38 AM   #60
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 08:29 AM
Here is a great article about exactly what I had on my mind when I said the president had failed us in International Relations. I fully expected him to be weak in domestic issues when he was elected, but strong, like his father in the international realm.

Well this article sums it up.

20 Feb 2003 23:13
Complications on U.S. road to war

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - On the verge of war in Iraq, the Bush administration finds its goals complicated by its own uncompromising approach as it builds a legacy that could do long-term damage to NATO, the United Nations and U.S. leadership, diplomats and analysts say.

Such criticism, made in the heat of rhetorical struggle over Iraq policy and vigorously rejected by administration officials, could well be revised if war against Baghdad is quick and reasonably successful.

But as it works to maximize world support in the countdown to military action against Saddam Hussein and to isolate North Korea, the United States finds itself nearly as much on the defensive as the "axis of evil" regimes it seeks to curtail.

Tensions between the United States and two of its oldest allies -- France and Germany -- were on display at a European security conference in early February, then exploded in a NATO dispute over defending alliance member Turkey and at a U.N. Security Council meeting on Iraq.

At the United Nations, council members took the extraordinary step of applauding French and Russian demands to slow the rush to war while comments by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who more than any U.S. official pursued a diplomatic solution, were met with stony silence.

Later, French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin fumed during a closed-door meeting with Powell that the United States was trying to divide Europe as France and Germany sought to unify the continent.

Meanwhile, anti-war demonstrations around the world last weekend drew millions of people in some of the largest protests since the Vietnam War.

PASSION STOKED

"There's no question that a succession of diplomatic moves by (President George W.) Bush, including (opposition to) the Kyoto protocol, the International Criminal Court, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and other similar defections from multilateralism, have created the backdrop for this standoff on Iraq," said European expert Charles Kupchan.

"Does that mean if these other events hadn't come first there would be unity on the Security Council? I wouldn't go that far. But it helps to explain the passionate nature of the debate and the widespread protests that have been sweeping Europe. Anti-Americanism has been on a steady rise since Bush took office. It's not just about Iraq," said Kupchan of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Even before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, Bush sought to reassert American leadership and power in many spheres, often fomenting resentments in the process by pursuing what critics view as a unilateral agenda with heavy-handed tactics.

On such issues as the global warming treaty known as Kyoto, the International Criminal Court and the ABM Treaty, U.S. officials declared their position repeatedly, brooking no compromise, until opponents were either persuaded or worn down.

Bush also asserted a willingness to wage preventive wars, reinforcing an image of America as too quick to use force.

The president's reluctant decision to seek U.N. Security Council support for a tough line on Iraq was an effort to win over critics but many believed Bush and his team, keen to finish the job left undone in the 1991 Gulf War, were not serious about a diplomatic solution.

RISING TENSIONS

In recent weeks, tensions have risen as NATO allies France and Germany dug in their heels against military action against Iraq, Turkey bargained hard for more aid in exchange for U.S. basing rights and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld rankled Paris and Berlin by dismissing them as "Old Europe."

"I think you can definitely argue the Bush people may have rubbed a little salt in the wounds and the rhetoric tended to exaggerate rather than diminish the differences," said Walter Russell Mead, also of the Council on Foreign Relations.

But the idea of Europe "being increasingly unhappy with American leadership while the U.S. feels its leadership is more needed than ever after Sept. 11 -- that's something that's there. It doesn't matter who was president," he said.

U.S.-European consensus on Iraq is still possible but even if America goes to war without U.N. approval, trans-Atlantic ties will survive, as in previous upheavals, he added.

NATO Secretary-General George Robertson said the dispute over whether to give Turkey equipment to defend itself against Iraq showed alliance disarray but was not a mortal blow.

Kupchan was more pessimistic, doubting NATO would survive the crisis and warning that Washington's failure to win U.N. support for military action would be a "historical turning point that would ... deal a powerful blow to the U.N., (erode) the West as a coherent political entity ... and risk the United States' international political legitimacy."

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N20391137

Ex-Reagan Official Speaks out with similar voice:

http://www.rgj.com/news/stories/html...sp3=Local+News

__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com